[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:06:33 +0000
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>

I don't know who Mr. Gordo is, but those comments directly contradict 
the ARRL Antenna Book and the evidence from EZNEC.

I've posted the EZNEC elevation patterns here:

The blue trace is an 80m quarter-wave vertical over poor Sandy soil. 
Notice the relatively high optimum take-off angle of around 30 degrees.

The green trace is the same antenna, but with Salt water immediately 
below the antenna extending out a quarter-wavelength in all directions. 
It's the equivalent of an excellent ground radial system. Notice that 
the signal is generally stronger at all elevations, but the shape has 
*not* changed. Optimum take-off angle is still around 30 degrees.

Now extend the Salt water out to 1000ft and you get the red trace. We 
have now improved the conductivity far out from the antenna where the 
elevation pattern is being formed, and we have dramatically changed the 
shape of the elevation pattern. Optimum take-off angle is now about 7 

Steve G3TXQ

On 06/01/2011 02:19, Richards wrote:
> This is what Mr. Gordo says verbatim on Disc 6 of his Extra Class Exam
> course:
>               "What strongly affects the shape of the far-field low angle
>               which we want?   the low angle elevation pattern of a vertically
>               polarized antenna ?  Well, that would be the conductivity
>               and dielectric constant of the soil in the area just below the
>               antenna.   And the more conductive the soil is, the better
>               the low angle of radiation.    How is the far-field elevation 
> pattern
>               of of a vertically polarized antenna affected by being mounted
>               over seawater versus, let's say, ah, dry rocky ground?  Well the
>               low angle radiation increases and that is what we want is low
>               angle radiation.
>               Now don't read too much into this... when they say it increases,
>               it does not mean it goes up, it means that there is more signal
>               coming out of it at a low angle.
>               What is the main effect of placing a vertical antenna over an
>               imperfect ground... the big effect there is it will reduce the
>               low angle radiation and create high levels of radiation like
>               NVIS  where you are bouncing signals and, as hams call
>               it, "warming the clouds."
>               So, if you are thinking of putting up a vertical antenna, on
>               your roof, then have plenty of ground radials, usually two
>               to three inch-wide copper foil strips, as the ground plane.
>               If you are thinking of doing a vertical antenna in your back
>               yard, relying on your soil as ground, unless you live right
>               on the water, I recommend don't.  Put it up on a metal
>               shed or up on a roof, with ground foil radials, and you
>               will have a much better low angle radiation pattern."
> So.... I guess I am re-thinking all of this and not so sure that Ol'
> Gordo is sufficiently precise when he says all this about improving
> vertical antenna low angle radiation.   Or am I still missing something ?
> Thanks.
> ===============  Happy Trails - James - K8JHR  ============
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>